HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-28_GP-LCP IC Agenda Meeting PacketAGENDA
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
February 28, 2007
3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Review of revised schedule for Implementation Tasks
Attachment 1 3:30-3:35
2. Review and recommendation to City Council on draft
Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Regarding
Development Agreements
Attachments 2 and 3 3:35-4:15
3. Update and Status Report on RFP for Zoning Code rewrite
Attachments 4 and 5 4:15-4:30
4. Items for Future Agenda
4:30-4:35
5. Public Comments on non -agenda items 4:35-4:45
Attachment 1
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
January 12, 2007
1. Interim Zoning Resolution (including ability to require development
agreements)
Staff, January 9, 2007
2. Procedures to implement single- and two-family design policies
Staff, March 27, 2007
3. Zoning Code and Specific Plan rewrite
Consultant, with staff input and review, December 11, 2007(tentative)
4. CLUP amendment
Staff, April 27, 2007 to Coastal Commission
5. Housing Element certification by HCD
EIP and staff, March 2, 2007
6. Park Dedication Fee (Quimby Act)
Staff, February 27, 2007
12. Subdivision Code amendment re: residential subdivisions
Staff, May 22, 2007
13. LCP Implementation Plan
Staff, concurrent with/trailing Zoning Code rewrite
02/23/2007
15. Traffic signal synchronization
Public Works staff, master plan June 2007
16. PC rewrite/revisions
Property owners for major ones, their schedule
Staff or consultant for smaller ones, with Zoning rewrite or second phase
(Get time and cost estimates with Zoning RFP responses)
17. Banning Ranch Pre -Annexation and Development Agreement
City Council, staff and property owners, TBD
18. Harbor Area Management Plan
Harbor Commission and staff, September 2008
19. Run-off and Pollution Reduction Plan
Coastal/Bay Water Quality Committee and staff, ongoing
20. Database refinements and maintenance
Staff, refinements TBD, maintenance ongoing
21. Fiscal Impact Model training
ADE and staff, February 23, 2007
Lower Priority
Municipal Code amendments re: property maintenance standards
■ Building Code amendments re: green buildings
Amend City Council Policies on historic, archaeo and paleo resources
02/23/2007
Attachments 2 and 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MEMORANDUM
TO: General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
FROM: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
DATE: February 23, 2007
RE: Draft Ordinance Regarding Development Agreements
Attached is a revised draft of the ordinance amending the Municipal Code to
require development agreements in certain cases.
I believe the Committee's concern about the previous draft eliminating the
requirements already contained in the General Plan was caused by poor drafting
on my part. I've corrected that, and apologize for the confusion. I've made other
changes to respond to comments from the Committee at the February 14
meeting.
I know that the primary issue discussed at the last meeting was the proposed
limitation of the development agreement requirement to projects requiring
legislative acts. The City Attorney will be at your meeting of February 28 to
answer questions on this issue.
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.45 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopted Ordinance
No. 82-30, adding Chapter 15.45 Development Agreements to the Newport Beach
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a comprehensive update to the Newport
Beach General Plan on July 25, 2006, which update was approved by the voters,
pursuant to Charter Section 423, on November 7, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan allows new land uses and more development than
had previously been allowed on some properties; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that much of the additional development
will require future legislative changes to the Zoning Code and Coastal Land Use Plan.
The City Council wishes to provide the ability for development allowed in the General
Plan and approved by the voters to be implemented gradually and thoughtfully over an
extended period of time, to provide developers with certainty regarding development
impact fees, and to provide a mechanism for developers who benefit from these
protections and the increased development opportunities to provide additional public
benefits to support implementation of the General Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby
ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 15.45 Development Agreements of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code is hereby amended to add a new Section 15.45.020, as follows, and to renumber
subsequent sections as 15.45.030 Application and Fees through 15.45.100
Recordation.
15.45. 020 Development Agreement Required
A. Development Agreements shall be required in conjunction with City approval of
development projects for which a Development Agreement is required per General
Plan policy, and projects that require a General Plan amendment, Zoning Code
amendment or other legislative act and that have one or more of the following
characteristics:
2-1. Include the development of fifty (50) or more residential units. [Larger
West Newport Mesa projects, Lido Village MU area, Lido Peninsula, Airport Area
replacement projects, but not Lido Village RM area]
3-2. Include residential development in the Mariners' Mile corridor, as this
geographic area is described in the General Plan Land Use Element. [Bayfront
mixed use and inland residential]
4-3. Include new non-residential development in Statistical Area L1 (Newport
Center), Statistical Area L-3, or Statistical Area L-4 (Airport Area). [Newport
Center hotel, Fashion Island retail, MacArthur Boulevard Caltrans parcel, Airport
Area non-residential area that requires Zoning or PC amendment]
B. Notwhithstanding the provisions of Section 1.45.020 A, a Development Agreement
shall not be required for a proiect that includes remodeling of existing building floor
area, without the addition of new floor area.
C. The City Council may waive the requirement for a Development Agreement if it finds
that the legislative act is of a minor nature, the project provides significant public
benefits to the City, or the sizenature of the project is such that neither the City nor
the developer would benefit from a Development Agreement.
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is,
for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection,
clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this
ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.
SECTION 4: This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach, held on the _ day of 2007, and adopted on the
day of 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Attachments 4 and 5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MEMORANDUM
TO: General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
FROM: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
DATE: February 23, 2007
RE: Zoning Code - RFP
As of Friday afternoon, staff has not received any proposals. However, we expect
to receive at least one, from Hogle-Ireland. Their proposal will likely include
collaboration with two or three other firms. I will provide the Committee with an
update when the proposal arrives.
Of the other firms we sent RFP's to, Dyett & Bhatia and EDAW declined to
submit proposals. Their responses are attached.
Page 1 of 1
Ramirez, Gregg
From: Michael Dyett [dyett@dyettandbhatia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Ramirez, Gregg
Subject: RFP for Zoning Code Re -write
Dear. Mr. Ramirez:
After careful consideration of your RFP and our current workload, we have decided not to submit a proposal. We
understand that the City has an aggressive schedule, which we can not support given other commitments,
including comprehensive zoning ordinance updates for Pomona, Santa Monica and Los Angles County as well as
complete ordinance updates for a Morro Bay, a couple of Bay Area cities and a new code for Mesa, Arizona.
We also believe that it is important to have some code users/stakeholders interviews about what the problems are
with current zoning and what the underlying thinking is about General Plan policies; following this, there should be
an informed discussion of "big ideas" and tradeoffs in considering different approaches to zoning — how far does
the City want to go with a certain idea, such as residential neighborhood character, an incentive program, coastal
access, view protection, or alternatives to FAR regulations. Lessons from other jurisdictions also are helpful. We
usually start with an analysis of "issues and options" after stakeholder interviews and field trips to see existing
development (so we can try to trace problems back to either the wrong standards or the absence of standards)
and then prepare a working paper which is then the basis for Committee discussion and policy direction. An
annotated outline is then prepared and confirmed with the Committee before drafting begins. We usually prepare
"modules" for Committee discussion — 3 or 4 at most. We have never prepared a code by meeting twice a month
on drafts because we think a lot of work is needed to ensure internal consistency and resolve the best way to
address issues.
We think there always are choices even with clear General Plan direction - what is the right balance between
Commission and staff review, how far to go with design standards vs.. a review process (and here I don't
necessarily mean getting into a rigid form -based code), and how to deal with Coastal Commission
mandates/concerns.
Your Commission and Council may have concerns about recent development that may not have been fully
reflected in the new plan and in the list of 32 issues in the RFP; so again, some options analysis may be
appropriate. I think you want an ordinance that is "cut from whole cloth" and not a template hastily put together
and re -worked with committee drafting — the best ordinance is one where one person holds the pencil, so to
speak. Finally, your consultant will need time to analyze and talk about different ways of dealing with the Coastal
Act - what choices does Newport Beach really have?
We do not believe that a six-month schedule is realistic to meet the City's expectations for high quality work. We
mentioned this to the City staff who called us before the RFP was issued, but we gather the City wants to stick
with this schedule. If the scope and timing were to change, we might re -consider our decision about whether to
submit a proposal.
Thank you for considering us for this assignment.
Cordially,
Michael vanVeber Dyett, FA1CP
DYETT & BHATIA I Urban and Regional Planners
755 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
fax. 415 956 7315
tel. 415 956 4300 x14
www,dye_tta nd bhatia,com.
02/22/2007
EDAw Inc
2737 Campus Drive, Irvine, California 92612
T 949.660.8044 F 949.660.1046 www.edaw.com
February 16, 2007
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FEB 21 2007
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Subject: Request for Proposals for Zoning Code Re -Write
Dear Mr. Ramirez,
On behalf of EDAW, I would like to thank you for inviting us to submit a proposal for the aforementioned project.
Unfortunately, we must respectfully decline your invitation due to our current workload.
We wish you success with this project and hope to respond to future requests from the City of Newport Beach. If
we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Again, thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Amanda Smith
Marketing Coordinator